Library Net access under renewed attack

Library filtering foes once again will face off in court later this month, in a case that has become the symbolic flip side of a previous bellwether case.

3 January 200212:43 am GMT

Library filtering foes once again will face off in court later
this month, in a case that has become the symbolic flip side of the
bellwether Loudoun County Library case.

In November a federal judge ruled that the Loudoun County
Library was violating the Constitution by installing Internet filters on
all of its computers providing Net access. On January 13, a parent in
Livermore, California--in tandem with a religious organization--will sue
for precisely the opposite reason: because the Livermore
Public Library failed to install filters on its computers, allowing
patrons full access to the Net.

The plaintiffs--a Livermore
parent identified only as "Kathleen R." and the Pacific Justice Institute, a
Sacramento-based nonprofit legal defense organization specializing in
religious freedom and parents' rights--filed a lawsuit in May after
the woman's 12-year-old son repeatedly downloaded pornographic images to a
disk, printed them out at a relative's house, and then distributed them,
according to the suit.

Alameda County Superior Court judge George Hernandez Jr. in October dismissed the bulk of the suit,
arguing it was preempted by a federal law contained within a portion of the
Communications Decency Act that was not thrown out by the Supreme Court.

Since then, however, the plaintiffs have amended their complaint and are
asking the court to force Livermore to install filters, citing the 14th
Amendment. They are alleging that Livermore, with its policy of allowing
unfettered access to the Net, is violating citizen rights to due process,
and "is placing children in danger," said Mike Millen, the attorney
representing the plaintiffs.

"What our lawsuit contends is that the library actively places children in
danger of severe psychological harm by providing them with obscene
pornography," Millen said.

But Dan Sodegren, assistant city attorney for the city of Livermore said
the case is weak and that Livermore is likely to win. "The
14th Amendment was designed to protect against arbitrary state action," he
said.

He noted that Livermore didn't actually take any action at all, adding: "The basis of this case is that we didn't do anything."

Courts have time and again ruled against mandatory filtering in libraries.
But new cases challenging libraries that either filter too much or filter too little continue to arise.

Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, said today that the
Livermore library, by allowing anyone to access anything on the
Net--including pornography--is committing "a severe breach of the public
trust."

"Public entities should not be immune from answering to the harm to young
children they know could occur by exposure to this material, material which
would be illegal to be distributed to minors in virtually any other
setting," he said.

The library has a responsibility to "protect minor children," he added.

"Right now the library's policy is free and open access, and it's the
responsibility of the user to monitor what is coming in," said library
director Susan Gallinger. "In the case of children, it's the responsibility
of parents [to monitor what is being accessed]."

Gallinger said the library has not received other complaints about its
policy since the case was filed, and, in fact, has received many letters of
support.

Millen said he expected that, by the time this case winds its way through the court system, given the promise
of appeals on both sides, the applicable law will have changed.

"I strongly believe the law is going to change," he said. "[Meanwhile, this case] is helping to raise national awareness."